RX J1532.9+3021: Extreme power of black hole revealed

Jan 23, 2014

(Phys.org) —Astronomers have used NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and a suite of other telescopes to reveal one of the most powerful black holes known. The black hole has created enormous structures in the hot gas surrounding it and prevented trillions of stars from forming.

The black hole is in a galaxy cluster named RX J1532.9+3021 (RX J1532 for short), located about 3.9 billion light-years from Earth. The image here is a composite of X-ray data from Chandra revealing hot gas in the cluster in purple and optical data from the Hubble Space Telescope showing galaxies in yellow. The cluster is very bright in X-rays implying that it is extremely massive, with a mass about a quadrillion—a thousand trillion—times that of the Sun. At the center of the cluster is a large elliptical galaxy containing the supermassive black hole.

The large amount of hot gas near the center of the cluster presents a puzzle. Hot gas glowing with X-rays should cool, and the dense gas in the center of the cluster should cool the fastest. The pressure in this cool central gas is then expected to drop, causing gas further out to sink in towards the galaxy, forming trillions of stars along the way. However, astronomers have found no such evidence for this burst of stars forming at the center of this cluster.

This problem has been noted in many galaxy clusters but RX J1532 is an extreme case, where the cooling of gas should be especially dramatic because of the high density of gas near the center. Out of the thousands of clusters known to date, less than a dozen are as extreme as RX J1532. The Phoenix Cluster is the most extreme, where, conversely, large numbers of stars have been observed to be forming.

What is stopping large numbers of stars from forming in RX J1532? Images from the Chandra X-ray Observatory and the NSF's Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA) have provided an answer to this question. The X-ray image shows two large cavities in the hot gas on either side of the central galaxy (mouse over the image for a labeled version). The Chandra image has been specially processed to emphasize the cavities. Both cavities are aligned with jets seen in radio images from the VLA. The location of the supermassive black hole between the cavities is strong evidence that the supersonic jets generated by the black hole have drilled into the hot gas and pushed it aside, forming the cavities.

Shock fronts—akin to sonic booms—caused by the expanding cavities and the release of energy by sound waves reverberating through the hot gas provide a source of heat that prevents most of the gas from cooling and forming new stars.

The cavities are each about 100,000 light-years across, roughly equal to the width of the Milky Way galaxy. The power needed to generate them is among the largest known in galaxy clusters. For example, the power is almost 10 times greater than required to create the well-known cavities in Perseus.

Although the energy to power the jets must have been generated by matter falling toward the black hole, no X-ray emission has been detected from infalling material. This result can be explained if the black hole is "ultramassive" rather than supermassive, with a mass more than 10 billion times that of the Sun. Such a black hole should be able to produce powerful jets without consuming large amounts of mass, resulting in very little radiation from material falling inwards.

Another possible explanation is that the black hole has a mass only about a billion times that of the Sun but is spinning extremely rapidly. Such a black hole can produce more powerful jets than a slowly spinning black hole when consuming the same amount of matter. In both explanations the black hole is extremely massive.

A more distant cavity is also seen at a different angle with respect to the jets, along a north-south direction. This cavity is likely to have been produced by a jet from a much older outburst from the black hole. This raises the question of why this cavity is no longer aligned with the jets. There are two possible explanations. Either large-scale motion of the gas in the cluster has pushed it to the side or the black hole is precessing, that is, wobbling like a spinning top.

Related Stories

(Phys.org) —This composite image of a galaxy illustrates how the intense gravity of a supermassive black hole can be tapped to generate immense power. The image contains X-ray data from NASA's Chandra X-ray ...

(PhysOrg.com) -- This composite image of the Hydra A galaxy cluster shows 10-million- degree gas observed by Chandra in blue and jets of radio emission observed by the Very Large Array in pink. Optical data ...

(Phys.org) —Astronomers have long sought strong evidence that Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, is producing a jet of high-energy particles. Finally they ...

(Phys.org) -- Astronomers have found an extraordinary galaxy cluster -- one of the largest objects in the Universe -- that is breaking several important cosmic records. Observations of this cluster, known ...

(Phys.org) —Researchers in Spain have discovered a black hole that doesn't reveal itself through x-ray radiation thrown off by material that is being sucked into it. In their paper published in the journal ...

(Phys.org) —A bright, long-duration flare may be the first recorded event of a black hole destroying a star in a dwarf galaxy. The evidence comes from two independent studies using data from NASA's Chandra ...

Recommended for you

Like the lost little puppy that wanders too far from home, astronomers have found an unusually small and distant group of stars that seems oddly out of place. The cluster, made of only a handful of stars, ...

A team of astronomers, led by Darach Watson, from the University of Copenhagen used the Very Large Telescope's X-shooter instrument along with the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) to observe ...

Most of the times we have looked at Uranus, it has seemed to be a relatively calm place. Well, yes its atmosphere is the coldest place in the solar system. But, when we picture the seventh planet in our ...

Collisions between galaxies, and even less dramatic gravitational encounters between them, are recognized as triggering star formation. Observations of luminous galaxies, powered by starbursts, are consistent ...

The large amount of hot gas near the center of the cluster presents a puzzle. Hot gas glowing with X-rays should cool, and the dense gas in the center of the cluster should cool the fastest. The pressure in this cool central gas is then expected to drop, causing gas further out to sink in towards the galaxy

Still trying to apply MHD gas laws to this plasma, is there any question as to why they are "puzzled".

The large amount of hot gas near the center of the cluster presents a puzzle. Hot gas glowing with X-rays should cool, and the dense gas in the center of the cluster should cool the fastest. The pressure in this cool central gas is then expected to drop, causing gas further out to sink in towards the galaxy

Still trying to apply MHD gas laws to this plasma, is there any question as to why they are "puzzled".

Naw, I get it. All their presumptions are based on characteristics of gas, sadly this "hot gas glowing with x-rays" is in fact a plasma. Plasma is rife with all sorts of behavior that cannot be related with gas in any way, such as double layers, instabilities, currents, among other phenomena. Labeling it "hot gas" is misleading. Alfvén and Arrhenius in 1973 wrote in Evolution of the Solar System:

"The basic difference [of approaches to modeling] is to some extent illustrated by the terms ionized gas and plasma which, although in reality synonymous, convey different general notions. The first term gives an impression of a medium that is basically similar to a gas, especially the atmospheric gas we are most familiar with. In contrast to this, a plasma, particularly a fully ionized magnetized plasma, is a medium with basically different properties."

Still trying to apply MHD gas laws to this plasma, is there any question as to why they are "puzzled"

your assumption based on what proof?

OR they found something that worked better than the EU CRACKPOT science and decided to run with it:

We further find evidence of a cold front (r=65kpc) that coincides with the outermost edge of the western X-ray cavity and the edge of the radio mini-halo. The common location of the cold front with the edge of the radio mini-halo supports the idea that the latter originates from electrons being reaccelerated due to sloshing induced turbulence. Alternatively, its coexistence with the edge of the X-ray cavity may be due to cool gas being dragged out by the outburst. We confirm that the central AGN is highly sub-Eddington and conclude that a >10^10M_Sun or a rapidly spinning black hole is favoured to explain both the radiative-inefficiency of the AGN and the powerful X-ray cavities.

I made no assumption whatsoever, stated only fact. It is a fact they use ideal MHD of ionized gas models. From article;

The large amount of hot gas near the center of the cluster presents a puzzle.

This is a fact based upon the SM and how it predicts behavior of matter, as stated in article.

Such a phenomena can easily be explained by non-local transport of energy, something that is common in plasma via electric currents. To understand such a notion you will need more than the 8th grade plasma science provided for by wiki. Here is a peer reviewed introduction to plasma provided by the Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfven;http://www.plasma...fven.pdf

You should also read his Nobel Lecture, he explains the confusion astrophysicists experience due to lack of proper training in their understanding of plasma.http://www.nobelp...ture.pdf

I made no assumption whatsoever, stated only fact. It is a fact they use ideal MHD of ionized gas models.From article;

yep. i saw that in the article, so i read the abstract.and you ARE making an assumption: based on a 20+yo paper and a 40+year old unsubstantiated comment.this is making a biased assessment with no corroborating evidence or proof of your validity.tell you what, read the papers that described the work linked at the end

dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/163

Preprint: arxiv.org/abs/1306.0907

then come back and prove your statement. at least by offering an assessment of the math and pointing out where it is wrong and makes wrong assumptions.show it all here, their work, then your work, and use references to reputable physics sites

my post linked to their paper.if you are going to assume they dont know what they are talking about, then you should prove it with their work,not just make baseless claims with no proof

The common location of the cold front with the edge of the radio mini-halo supports the idea that the latter originates from electrons being reaccelerated due to sloshing induced turbulence. Alternatively, its coexistence with the edge of the X-ray cavity may be due to cool gas being dragged out by the outburst. We confirm that the central AGN is highly sub-Eddington and conclude that a >10^10M_Sun or a rapidly spinning black hole is favoured to explain both"

"may be due to cool gas...." - they aren't sure.

The "sloshing" induced turbulence math and the physical means by which this "sloshing" causes the release of x-rays should be in the paper. Instead we have this on page 2 - "However,how the fine tuning between heating and cooling is accomplished still remains poorly understood."

"if you are going to assume they dont know what they are talking about, then you should prove it with their work" CS

Capn - The paper is very well written, the math, references and observations are meticulous. They know "what" they are talking about, they just can't peg the interactions taking place in certain regions. They don't know "how" what they are talking about is occurring, that is the only reason the word "sloshing" just appeared in what is otherwise a textbook scientific paper.

They know "what" they are talking about, they just can't peg the interactions taking place in certain regions. They don't know "how" what they are talking about is occurring, that is the only reason the word "sloshing" just appeared in what is otherwise a textbook scientific paper.

@no fatei see the point you makebut i think you misunderstood the above with cd

cd made a claim that the authors dont understand plasma physics and has no basis for his claim; he should at least use the math/paper to validate this claim, instead of quoting a 20+yo paper and a 40+year old unsubstantiated comment.that makes the argument circular, and appeals to authority of another, based upon a time when they may NOT have understood, as his personal experience may supporthowever it may NOT be true TODAYtimes really do change

to validate it requires proof that he did not offerhe offered only conjecture

cd made a claim that the authors dont understand plasma physics and has no basis for his claim;

You reread the paper, is there any discussion of these aspects?"In order to understand the phenomena in a certain plasma region, it is necessary to map not only the magnetic but also the electric field and the electric currents." Hannes Alfven, Nobel Laureate

There is no mention of these aspects, the use of "winds", "sloshing", "fronts", "sinking", and black holes, are all aspects of gas and fluid dynamics and they have nothing to do at all with plasma characteristics. Alfven's claim of astrophysicists using the incorrect models are as valid today as 40yrs ago, he should know as he is the one who developed the MHD models astrophysicists still use. It's no coincidence he used his Nobel lecture to point out the errors of his ways, sadly his warnings continue to be ignored.

Alfven's claim of astrophysicists using the incorrect models are as valid today as 40yrs ago, he should know as he is the one who developed the MHD models astrophysicists still use

and

sadly his warnings continue to be ignored

and you are a moron to assume that nothing has changed since thenand your assumption that everyone stopped learning plasma physics circa 1970(?) or so is based upon a fallacy, as you have YET to prove that modern physics does not teach itIt is even a specialityThis fact ALONE should convince you that your comments are unfounded

It actually focuses on inter-cluster plasma, just like in the article above. The point of the article is the difficulties in modeling such plasma, and why. I think Cantdrive will be amazed by how much we actually do know about this (and the paper is 10 years old). The systems are too complex for us to model, but that is quite different from saying that we don't understand it or that it is ignored.

They discuss how and why the model for MHD is and isn't used, amongst other things regarding the forces and motions in cosmic plasma.

One key takeaway from the article is the chaotic nature of such plasma, which prevents large scale organization into structures, such as cantdrive frequently imagines. This chaotic behavior is known from observations, not theory. We can't model it, but we can see it.

"For relaxed systems, the primarily spiral-shapedcold fronts are believed to arise from gas sloshing in thedeep dark matter-dominated potential well. These motionsare initiated when the low-entropy, cool gas of thecore is displaced from the bottom of the dark matter potentialwell, either by gravitational perturbations frominfalling subclusters"

Assumed DM component and the mention of "stochastic magnetic mirrors" http://iopscience...ulltext/in the paper - which are references to "tangled magnetic field lines", are what I call red flags.

There are no tangled magnetic field lines...ever. They align and compress, and in reality are not stochastic unless there is multiple fields interacting without particle flow to reveal the interactions.

It actually focuses on inter-cluster plasma, just like in the article above. The point of the article is the difficulties in modeling such plasma, and why. I think Cantdrive will be amazed by how much we actually do know about this (and the paper is 10 years old). The systems are too complex for us to model, but that is quite different from saying that we don't understand it or that it is ignored.

They discuss how and why the model for MHD is and isn't used, amongst other things regarding the forces and motions in cosmic plasma.

One key takeaway from the article is the chaotic nature of such plasma, which prevents large scale organization into structures, such as cantdrive frequently imagines. This chaotic behavior is known from observations, not theory. We can't model it, but we can see it.

Gswift: I think he actually linked that paper once to prove that MHD was insufficient for modelling IS plasma because they state it a few times. It's (mhd's) failure isn't that the plasma motion is chaotic, it is that math cannot predict locations of turbulence or fluctuations in field strength, both of which have an immediate effect on plasma either perturbing the flow or accelerating it.

He may have. I know I have read it before, which is why I went looking for it today. Just because he linked to it, doesn't mean he actually read it though. Even if he did read it, I seriously doubt he understands the math. I know he didn't have a f'ing clue about that MIT electromagnetic field theory introductory textbook I linked to last week. I know he didn't understand that because he is still here arguing the same bullsh that violates those very same EFT fundamental laws.

He thinks he is arguing against GR, but he's really arguing against Maxwell and Gauss, and the irony is that he's using Maxwell's and Gauss' theories as the basis of his arguments. I've heard of circular logic before, but cantdrive has created circular illogic.

Well, not so much. You can tell in the first few lines this guy doesn't understand it, although he thinks he does."While there is often a component of the ﬁeld that is spatially coherent at the scale of the astrophysical object, the ﬁeld lines are tangled chaotically and there are magnetic ﬂuctuations at scales that range over orders of magnitude."

"Field lines" DO NOT EXIST (that help stumpy?), they are merely mathematical constructs such as point sources. They cannot "do" anything such as twisting, touching, or merging. They do go on and make an accurate statement;"Despite over ﬁfty years of research and many major advances, a satisfactory theory of MHD turbulence remains elusive."Because they refuse to listen to Alfven and ditch the MHD models in favor of the particle/circuit models he advocated. It is highly complex and beyond modeling by simplistic models, but that doesn't mean large scale structure cannot form.

He may have. I know I have read it before, which is why I went looking for it today. Just because he linked to it, doesn't mean he actually read it though. Even if he did read it, I seriously doubt he understands the math. I know he didn't have a f'ing clue about that MIT electromagnetic field theory introductory textbook I linked to last week. I know he didn't understand that because he is still here arguing the same bullsh that violates those very same EFT fundamental laws.

It is your own belief that PC violates EFT, I think Alfven was quite aware of EFT (IEEE life fellow/Nobel Laureate). It is your own ignorance of plasma which clouds your view. Linking to that paper only exemplifies your confusion and that of astrophysics.

They are like lattitude and longitude lines. They exist in the same way. They are a mathematical construct that represent the vector of the flux in the field.

Current flows WILL tend to follow those vectors, and if you actually know anything about plasma, you'll know that the current can enhance the local flux, which will orgainze into structures like the flux ropes you see in the photosphere of the sun.

This is actually a very basic thing. You can demonstrate the same kind of self-organization with the old bar magnet and metal filing trick. The filings will self-magnetize and and stick together. Plasma kinda does the same thing, but with a more complicated mechanism. However, in both cases you are seeing a physical outline of the mathematical construct we call field lines.

In 1986, when the paper you linked to was published (probably written earlier), we did not have a solar observatory with the ability to actually observe the 'frozen-in field lines". That might be an unfortunate name, but the phenomenon the name is supposed to describe has been observed. Broken and reconnected field lines have also been observed now, thanks to our latest generation of solar observatories.

Here's a link to a news story, with links to relevant sources, that even has a video of a reconnection event. You need to stop reading articles from a guy that died before we created tools powerful enough to actually observe the physical processes he was only able to theorize about on paper (no big fancy computers for Hannes, just paper and slide rulers).

The physical arcs you see in the video aren't the actual field lines, as field lines aren't physical objects. The arcs you see in the video are electrical currents in the plasma which have organized into ropes along the field vectors. When the potential from one vector over-poweres the potential of another vector, the currents (and the plasma riding along and helping to create the currents) will suddenly change paths to follow the path of least resistance. If you want to see this change of path in action, just walk around on the carpet in your socks for a while and then go touch your dog's nose. When that spark of static electricity jumps off your finger an eight of an inch from your dog's nose, you have just witnessed a jump of potential.

I hope he bites your finger in the process, and you aren't able to type for a few days. That would save me from hurting myself again while laughing at you. You earned that karma. :)

As has been pointed out numerous times, "magnetic reconnection" is a poor attempt at reinventing a previously described phenomena.http://www.thunde...heel.htm

You read the paper (?) and don't even understand what he is saying. He's giving you the mechanism, devised some 60yrs ago by Alfven using slide rulers, yet they are still struggling with it using supercomputers. To be sure, the currents are primary, without them no fields.

So now you are claiming lightning strikes and static electricity to be "magnetic reconnection"? ROTFFLMAO!

It is your own belief that PC violates EFT, I think Alfven was quite aware of EFT (IEEE life fellow/Nobel Laureate). It is your own ignorance of plasma which clouds your view. Linking to that paper only exemplifies your confusion and that of astrophysics

Yeah, lol. Alfven's work was based on the fundamentals, and he came up with the ideas which he later abandonded. Too bad we actually did prove him right by observation after his death. It would have been nice for him to see that he was correct in the first place.

Why did he abandon his own theory, btw? Was it because he realized that he couldn't support them without inadvertantly backing GR as well? We know he never accepted relativity to the day he died. I wonder why?

That's kinda a chicken and egg scenario. Claiming that you know the answer is silly.

If you're talking about currents and fields in the photosphere, the you are dead wrong. We know there are fields in the photosphere that have no corresponding plasma currents. In the photosphere, there are many fields, and the plasma only follows the paths of least resistance and/or highest potential. Without the plasma, there's no current. I may have read something into your comment that you didn't intend, but if you're saying there isn't any field at all without the plasma, then you're a completely lost in this subject. The plasma rides the paths of strongest potential/least resistance along the field vectors, and amplifies the existing field vectors in the local area, which draws even more plasma into the flow.

Under the photosphere, we don't know the source but they must both be powered by the same thing. Chickens?

Those electric ropes you mention have double layers (absent in MHD models), when DL's become unstable they can explode, releasing all of the inductive energy within the circuit. The DL's explain the particle acceleration that is observed.

If you want a real laugh, head on over to wiki and see what they have to say about MR. They certainly have reified those "field lines"http://en.wikiped...nnection

I think it's probably over cantdrive's head, but maybe he could check out the math section first, then come back to this.

I've actually been having some fun just seeing all the stuff they have at MIT for free. There's a TON of stuff on that site. There are other universities doing the same thing, so there's probably a source for just about anything you can think of these days.

Those electric ropes you mention have double layers (absent in MHD models),

Well duhh. MHD isn't supposed to cover that. It's a fundamental theory, not an applied theory. Everyone knows that, except you. In real life you have all sorts of interactions that cannot be calculated by our math. We can observe them though, so we know they are there, and a whole lot about how they behave and don't behave.

when DL's become unstable they can explode,

hmmm, I'm willing to accept that two bodies of opposite charge will exchange potential if they meet up. Basic stuff, but not what's happening in CME's (not enough potential, and it would look different than what we see.) You're almost talking about the opposite of what we're seeing. Again, we can't model it yet, but we see it.

head on over to wiki

Yeah, I especially like the last part, about actual lab experiments that exactly match theoretical expectations. Good link, thanks.

Those electric ropes you mention have double layers (absent in MHD models),

Besides.... what model are you proposing? Do you have any equation that predicts anything?

MHD works fine in the situations it is meant to perform in, and if we had the computing power and equations to work out the tubulence, MHD would be the foundation of the full picture. MHD works perfectly, it just cannot be completed by present human technology. It's not that we don't know it isn't complete, or why it isn't complete, or what we need to do to complete it. The problem is that nobody can do that yet. Your claims are complete bull. You have no model to support them, and observations are in contradiction to the basics of your claims. You are disputing things that are so basic that you may as well argue that yes actually means no. The things you say are so wrong that sometimes it's hard to pick which basic theory you've broken the worst.

directly refutes your supposition that modern education does not address plasma science and that modern science does not know anything about plasma physicssee also

The goal of MRX is to investigate the fundamental physics of magnetic field line reconnection, an important process in magnetized plasmas in space and in the laboratory. Click here to learn more about magnetic reconnection

[sic]this is ALSO a direct refute to your assumption that modern cosmology does not know anything about plasma physics, as this MRX is specifically FOR the study of astrophysical plasma's

Watch how fast the knives come out for Hawking when the day before if was the object of their plea to authority

@indio007this does not invalidate his earlier sciencemuch like Alfven or Tesla, there is valid science that was done and can be appreciated, but just because someone DID something good, doesnt mean that everything they did was just as valid and should retain the same weight or strength of authority

Because they refuse to listen to Alfven and ditch the MHD models in favor of the particle/circuit models he advocated.

MHD is not useless as you claim and Alfven didn't say that. It does not contain double layers because it doesn't describe the behavior of the plasma on the small Debye scales where double layers can exist. Just like hydrodynamics doesn't describe the motion of molecules. It is a fluid approximation and it is very, very useful but there are many things it doesn't describe hence why the test particle or kinetic frameworks are used. Astronomers are not ignorant of these, lots of work is done in the kinetic framework but some systems are too large.

Contrary to what you insist simply taking about field lines does not mean to imply the are physical, reconnection does not depend on field lines being physical, that is merely an analogy.

I guess it's just another "crank" with a mental illness.Watch how fast the knives come out for Hawking when the day before if was the object of their plea to authority.

You didn't read that article because he doesn't say there are no black holes, he says their boundary cannot trap matter permanently, which we know. You'll notice this is a great example where new idea's aren't dismissed but considered the opposite of what your conspiracy theory would have you believe.

Watch how fast the knives come out for Hawking when the day before if was the object of their plea to authority

@indio007this does not invalidate his earlier sciencemuch like Alfven or Tesla, there is valid science that was done and can be appreciated, but just because someone DID something good, doesnt mean that everything they did was just as valid and should retain the same weight or strength of authority

Sounding like you might be describing "Get off my grass" Johan, in a way.

Didn't say it was useless, just wrong. Alfven did say that, and spent several chapters in his Nobel lecture ridiculing those "models we know to be wrong by experimentation".http://www.nobelp...ture.pdf

Those particle kinetic models are based on the same incorrect MHD models of "ideal ionized gas". Alfven was explicit in his recommendation that particle/circuit models be used in describing plasma. He was also explicit in other recommendations;

Even with all that splainin' and the identified limitations, astrophysicists still rely on MHD models to explain the effect of an electric field (without acknowledging such fields), describe explosive events and the self changing current systems. What a waste of time!

"In order to understand the phenomena in a certain plasma region, it is necessary to map not only the magnetic but also the electric field and the electric currents." Hannes Alfven

astrophysicists still rely on MHD models to explain the effect of an electric field (without acknowledging such fields), describe explosive events and the self changing current systems. What a waste of time!

you are working under the assumption that it is still 1970you are wrongif you want to prove yourself correct

try taking some courses (take all that apply for a degree in cosmological physics, and maybe specialize in Plasma physics) and THEN come back and talk

Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) (magneto fluid dynamics or hydromagnetics) is the study of the dynamics of electrically conducting fluids. Examples of such fluids include plasmas, liquid metals, and salt water or electrolytes.

Alfven did say that, and spent several chapters in his Nobel lecture ridiculing those "models we know to be wrong by experimentation".

Irrelevant. No evidence he's talking about MHD.

Those particle kinetic models are based on the same incorrect MHD models of "ideal ionized gas".

No they aren't, now you're really showing your ignorance. Particle kinetic models do not use MHD because they are not fluid approximations.

Even with all that splainin' and the identified limitations

So you think limitations means it's wrong in all applications and Alfven should have given that Nobel Prize right back? No, limitations mean you should be careful, as people are when discussing certain phenomena. You've tried to take his words out of context and have failed, MHD is very useful.

this does not invalidate his earlier sciencemuch like Alfven or Tesla, there is valid science that was done and can be appreciated, but just because someone DID something good, doesnt mean that everything they did was just as valid and should retain the same weight or strength of authority

Capn, this totally invalidates alot of his earlier science, he has been theorizing about BH's for the last 20 years of his career so for him say they don't exist cannot be considered an extension or modification of any of his previous work.

Cantdrive: This site alone has published several articles in the last 2 years about generating magnetic fields without electricity.

Capn, this totally invalidates alot of his earlier science, he has been theorizing about BH's for the last 20 years of his career so for him say they don't exist cannot be considered an extension or modification of any of his previous work

this must be about hawking

from what I can tell, the paper addresses the event horizonBlack holes "simply do not have an event horizon to catch fire. The key to his claim is that quantum effects around the black hole cause space-time to fluctuate too wildly for a sharp boundary surface to exist."this is not the same thing as saying black holes do not exist...this paper has also not been peer reviewed as yet, from my understandingtherefore it appears to me that all his previous studies are intact

does that answer the question better?(seems that the article heading is there to generate clicks and is very misleading as it is NOT true)

"The absence of event horizons mean that there are no black holes - in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity. There are however apparent horizons which persist for a period of time. This suggests that black holes should be redefined as metastable bound states of the gravitational field."

He also posits that there is no singularity.

The article heading was pulled from the text of the paper.

It's funny, in one of the later books Einstein wrote he also tried to explain how he had been misinterpreted on some fronts and was just plain wrong on others, he made no bones about it. He stated his view on physics and the nature of matter/energy yet no one wanted to hear it. It didn't gel with the way physics was going at the time. I'm mildly curious as to whether Hawking gets peer approval or lambasted... mildly.

it also says in th article that there are aspects of his comments that are under contention by othersPolchinski, however, is sceptical that black holes without an event horizon could exist in naturePage ... questions whether that alone is enough to get past the firewall paradox

as for "there is no singularity"...

If Hawking is correct, there could even be no singularity at the core of the black hole

this means IF he is correct...and there COULD be no singularitynot that there definitely ISNT one...

All their presumptions are based on characteristics ofgas, sadly this "hot gas glowing with x-rays" is in fact a plasma.Plasma is rife with all sorts of behavior that cannot be related withgas in any way, such as double layers, instabilities, currents, amongother phenomena. Labeling it "hot gas" is misleading

I've read through the comments, and I'm not sure I understand what the person is saying. The plasma physics is well tested and well studied.Here is a reference where you can find out more, hopefully this will answer your question

I've read through the comments, and I'm not sure I understand what the person is saying. The plasma physics is well tested and well studied.Here is a reference where you can find out more, hopefully this will answer your question

I think it's been well established you are the one making blanket libelous claims. He's using the same faulty nonsense Timmy uses

@CDidiocy confirmed

the AUTHOR gave references so that you could understand that plasma physics was not only considered, was involved, but dont let reality get in the way of your fantasy!i knew you wouldnt read the links or check up yourself, because that would mean that you would have to admit EU is nothing but a PSEUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOT HYPOTHESIS with no basis in reality!